Lee is played in the film by Judi Dench, and her story is a crusher: She was sent to a Catholic abbey in Ireland as a teen after she got pregnant and, as was the custom then, was compelled to sign away her rights to the child. She still cared for him for the first three years of his life while she worked as an indentured laundry lady, and then saw her son given up for adoption. The movie is about how, after keeping this a shameful secret for 50 years, she teamed with a disgraced journalist named Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) to find that son. Since it’s an exceptionally personal story, she has chosen to speak out about a particularly nasty review by Kyle Smith of The New York Post that has become a Twitter hot-button topic. Of the title character’s teenaged dilemma, Smith writes that “the film doesn’t mention that in 1952 Ireland, both mother and child’s life would have been utterly ruined by an out-of-wedlock birth and that the nuns are actually giving both a chance at a fresh start that both indeed, in real life, enjoyed. No, this is a diabolical-Catholics film, straight up.” He ends his review by writing: “A film that is half as harsh on Judaism or Islam, of course, wouldn’t be made in the first place but would be universally reviled if it were. Philomena is a sucker punch, or maybe a sugary slice of arsenic cake.”

I’ve always found Smith to be a pretty thoughtful reviewer, but given this is someone’s life experience, this seems harshly judgmental to me. I’m Catholic, and there are many things over the long history of this institutionalized faith that leave you shaking your head. It’s no different than any other religion, and unlike some of the others, I do applaud the fact that controversial issues can and do get dissected in forums like film. And when you are in church, and feel the swell of faith in your heart that triggers conscience, good will, optimism, redemption and other fine things, well, there is nothing quite like it.

In her response, Lee addresses Smith directly: “Your review of the movie paints its story as being a condemnation of Catholicism and conservative views. It states that the relationship depicted between Mr. Martin Sixsmith and myself comes across as contrived and trite, and funny for all the wrong reasons. Forgive me for saying so, Kyle, but you are incorrect.

Recent Comments

I saw this film on Sunday and loved it. I found out just this past summer that...

Lindsy

1 year

Just saw the movie. The story of the mother son bond and telling the truth is indeed...

Dan Farr

1 year

If this event had been discovered in today's world it would have a movie about abduction and...

“What Stephen Frears did with Martin’s book is something extraordinary and quite real. Stephen’s take on the story of Martin and me searching for my long lost son, who I hadn’t spoken of to a single soul in fifty years, has overwhelmingly spoken to those who have seen it in a very positive light. For that I am intensely grateful, not just because people the world over have watched the movie with open hearts and embraced me for coming forward with the truth after all this time. The story it tells has resonated with people not because it’s some mockery of ideas or institutions that they’re in disagreement with. This is not a rally cry against the church or politics. In fact, despite some of the troubles that befell me as a young girl, I have always maintained a very strong hold on my faith.

“Kyle, Stephen’s movie about my story is meant to be a testament to good things, not an attack. It is a testament to the undying bond that’s exists between mothers and their children, something that I’ve found time and distance have no bearing on. It is a testament to the willingness to never give up on keeping that bond alive, even if all odds are pointing you against it. It is also a testament to the fact that no matter how old we grow, there is always a chance we will meet someone, however different from us, that might impact our views on humanity and help guide us on a new, if perhaps unforeseen, path.”

Here is her complete response to the reviewer:

Dear Kyle,

Having just had a film – and not long before that, a book – made about my life has been a surreal experience, needless to say. I worked for nearly thirty years as a nurse in a psychiatric hospital, a job that some days was emotionally grueling but in which I relished every moment of service. The rest of my time has been spent focusing on my family. All told, I’m a humble woman who has spent a quiet life in England, probably as far as one can get from the chaotic lights and busy chatter of the Hollywood and media world.

It wouldn’t normally be in my nature to comment on a movie review like yours, not just because this is all something new and foreign to me. I consider myself a woman of devout views but also one of considerable open mindedness. However, I must tell you that your take on PHILOMENA has moved me to respond.

Your review of the movie paints its story as being a condemnation of Catholicism and conservative views. It states that the relationship depicted between Mr. Martin Sixsmith and myself comes across as contrived and trite, and funny for all the wrong reasons. Forgive me for saying so, Kyle, but you are incorrect.

What Stephen Frears did with Martin’s book is something extraordinary and quite real. Stephen’s take on the story of Martin and me searching for my long lost son, who I hadn’t spoken of to a single soul in fifty years, has overwhelmingly spoken to those who have seen it in a very positive light. For that I am intensely grateful, not just because people the world over have watched the movie with open hearts and embraced me for coming forward with the truth after all this time. The story it tells has resonated with people not because it’s some mockery of ideas or institutions that they’re in disagreement with. This is not a rally cry against the church or politics. In fact, despite some of the troubles that befell me as a young girl, I have always maintained a very strong hold on my faith.

Kyle, Stephen’s movie about my story is meant to be a testament to good things, not an attack. It is a testament to the undying bond that’s exists between mothers and their children, something that I’ve found time and distance have no bearing on. It is a testament to the willingness to never give up on keeping that bond alive, even if all odds are pointing you against it. It is also a testament to the fact that no matter how old we grow, there is always a chance we will meet someone, however different from us, that might impact our views on humanity and help guide us on a new, if perhaps unforeseen, path.

Once again, let me state that all in all, Stephen, Martin and I have been incredibly fortunate in receiving such a warm response to the movie. Not everyone has to love it, or take much away from it, but I speak on behalf of all of us in saying that what we don’t want is its message to be misinterpreted. You are entitled to an opinion of course, as we all are. Just as I forgave the church for what happened with my son, I forgive you for not taking the time to understand my story. I do hope though that the families heading to the movie theatre to see the film decide for themselves – and disagree with you.

49 Comments

Rodney Hakes • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

It’s reassuring to see that the “hackery” that is News Corp/Fox extends into its movie reviews. Knee-jerk political diatribe disguised as a movie review, what will Rupert Murdoch and his minions think of next? Keep on innovating!

mack • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Hasn’t anyone heard of the movie The Magdalene Sisters, also based on the very real story of the horrible treatment of unwed mothers or “loose women” in these institutions. It should be noted that Catholics in Ireland have exposed these 1950’s situations. Smith clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about

Julie • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Good for her! Even if it was an attack on aspects of the catholic church in Ireland, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Only last year a woman died because a doctor was scared to carry out an abortion that would have saved her life. Go back 50 years and the situation for young women was dreadful, unless they conducted themselves in an ‘acceptable’ manner.

Jim Connors • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

And if you did your damn research, you would know that was bull. Not only did the woman die of an infection that had nothing to do with her pregnancy (and against which an abortion would most certainly not have helped her), but it now turns out that she never made any request for a termination in the first place.

Irish Dave • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Get your facts right, the Indian lady in question died due to a preventable medical blunder. To say she died because a doctor was scared to carry out an abortion that would have saved her life is erroneous and misinformed.

pro choice • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

this is true. google it.

dee • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

conservatives are never wrong… as well as movie critics so it will be interesting to see if he has the balls to respond with a real heartfelt reaction or he puts up the murdoch republican wall of indifference

Tawdry • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Well, that might have just convinced me to see this movie.

Katie • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I was planning to see this online, but having just read the original article I am not going to wait, this film is getting my money, in a theatre. The ignorant, small minded little man gave it 1 star, apparently based solely on his political views. Did he not understand this actually happened and not just to one woman.

Kevin • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I was planning on paying to see this film until I read this article. There is no doubt in mind this film was made to do exactly what the reviewer says it did.

M. Kelley • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I remembered it as second person but in fact it’s a fictional first person narrative.

hollyvet • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I guess I am right of center, but a social liberal. When I read that review in the Post I could not believe the fool reviewer. How pathetic this reviewer is. Glad of the response.

William E. Lowery • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Kyle Smith occassionally suffers, as he does here, from a condition technically known as ‘rectal-cranial inversion’.

DP • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Good for her. Never place a period where God has placed a comma nor trash one’s family. Luckily, no statue has ever been erected to a critic.

Steve Belgard • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

We’ve come to the conclusion in a “mass” review, that Kyle Smith is a douchebag. Good for Ms. Lee to respond in such a measured and heartfelt way. Personal attacks often bring more people to the theater, so in a way, Smith has done some good. But for now Mr. Smith, “No soup for you!”

karl • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

A lot of the comments here are also knee jerk reactions and to say the least, very prejudicial in my opinion. I’m talking about the first 6 comments.

Most are commenting on a movie they haven’t even seen. How do they support their claims that the reviewer is off base in his review? They support their claims by saying the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is a Fox subsidiary. They’re condemning the reviewer without knowing the facts and that’s a prime example of prejudice.

To Julie who was trying to make this about abortion… where did that come from? This isn’t a movie about abortion but rather a movie about a child’s life the mother regrets not being apart of. If Philomena had an abortion 50 years ago, then this whole quest to find her child would have never happened. Instead she would be spending her days wondering what could have been. Longing to have known that child that was apart of her. Possibly regretting the making the decision to have that life ended before the child had a chance to live their life to the fullest.

But that isn’t the story, instead she was able to make that journey to try and find closure.

Or Not • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Or she would’ve gone on with her life, like a grown up who has made a rational decision. Because women are capable of making these decisions.

Dan Farr • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

If this event had been discovered in today’s world it would have a movie about abduction and human trafficking and the victim’s of religious zealots.

I agree. I suspected as I was reading her very well composed response that she was possibly encouraged by the studio to do so and may have had some “messaging” assistance.

Brian • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Lisa & Simon’s snarky remarks are far too well-composed to be anything but Fox/News Corp propaganda. There is absolutely no possible chance that two human beings could express their own thoughts in print. It’s a Republican trap!
(To Simon & LIsa – does it sound as ridiculous when aimed at you as it does when you aim it at others?)

georgia • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Just returned from seeing this wonderful warm movie. There are two sides here: the cruel things the church has done alongside the positive acts. Both are truthful and Philomena experienced both and recognized both in the movie. Her faith remains intact in spite of it all, but she did want the story told. The church has changed in the past 50 years to the point that a Francis can be elected pope.

Alexandra Moore • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Just seen the film – I am the same age as Judi Dench so could relate to the 1950’s era very well. Although, having been born in England, we were somewhat in ignorance as to what was happening in Ireland in those days. It rather shocked me – even now – to what happened to young pregnant unmarried girls there. I had heard from friends who went to Convent schools in England how cruel some Nuns could be – but this film really opens one’s eyes!!!! However, in hindsight, the children could not have a better life than coming to America – and maybe the Nuns thought they were helping them. I would think that Wilomena was comforted to know her son had a good life, even though it was cut short.

rob • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Good for her. Kyle is a hack as a reviewer. If he has to wear his religion on his sleeve become a priest. Never liked his reviews much. But what do you expect from the Post- a 4 star rag

sj2260 • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I read the Post on Wed an Fri for one reason: Michael Riedel, who is the best theater reporter out there.

As far as their movie reviewers, this is the NY Publication that have one star to Philomena and three stars to Delivery Man starring Vince Vaughn. Neither is being releases by a News Corp subsidy; so it’s just their level of taste.

tdoa • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

The fool critic obviously never saw the film The Magdalene Sisters, which is exactly about such horrible conditions in such places in Ireland run by nuns and based on fact. The Catholic church has every reason to hang their head in shame!

Jacob • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I’m not political, but the hatred some of you have for Republicans is alarming. You’re just as hateful as the republicans you’re condemning for being hateful.

Malcolm X • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

“The hate that hate produced.”

Ruairí • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

The reviewer makes his piece about his own world views and not about the film.

I’ve seen it and it is touching and thought provoking.

As someone who was born and raised in Ireland I can tell you the Catholic church has done a great many unspeakable things. They should be spoken of and not denied.

As to the Savita Halapanavar case- the young woman who died in Galway and who could not have a termination. The real issue is that if an abortion would have saved her, it would not have been legal because it would endanger the child. IN her case the fetus was non-viable- not capable of surviving, yet there was no option to try and save her. The issue is not just what exactly caused her death, but were an abortion capable of saving her, it could not be carried out.

This is despite the fact that the courts and the people have decided the law should be changed, but no government has had the bravery to change the law as it stands, for fear of a backlash form the more traditional element.

To say that Philomena Lee was helped in writing this letter does her a disservice and presupposes that she is not smart enough to write her own response.

It saddens me o see that every issue discussed in America becomes a left/right bickering match.

See the movie, make your own minds up.

Aussie Jen • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I’ve just spent the afternoon on the continuing quest to document my brother’s ‘orphan’ life. My Mum was not Philomena Lee, she was Mary Jarvis, her story, my brother’s is similar. My Mum, 16 yr old Church of England (as it was in 1943), had her son in a Jewish facility, he was moved to CofE, then to Catholic. Like Philomena, it is not a story of religion, politics or football for that matter. How offensive for it to be belittled in that manner. It is a raw and real reflection of that time. Please don’t judge those of us affected, please let us tell, hear and share each others’ stories free from prejudice.

Michael Coolik • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Let us forgive the Catholic Church and any other organization, formal or informal, that has been involved with “intended” help to unmarried mothers and their children. We must keep in mind that the church and all organizations are made up of mere “people” and make decisions based on their personal beliefs and experiences. “TO ERE IS HUMAN”. We must consider their backgrounds and what has inspired them to become caregivers in the first place. The nuns take a vow of chastity for many reasons I am sure.

As for narrow-minded film critic I am sure there is some “echo” of his life experience and beliefs to be found in his commentary of PHILOMINA. I saw the film in October at the Hamptons Intl Film Festival, where it won BEST FILM AUDIENCE AWARD. Let’s let the audiences decide…after all, “water seeks it’s own level”.

The WAR being fought in the United States, as well as the world over is merely being fought between the “sensitive and the insensitive”.

Having found a daughter given up at birth , by her unwed Mother,
I firsthand know the grief and the JOY of finding the Love Child.

From a Father who searched and succeeded in finding HIS child who was also born in a Catholic Home for Unwed Mothers (here in the U.S.)

Val Ferrante • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I appreciate your understanding and level-headed comments Michael. Points to ponder: Did the Catholic church invade Philomena’s home and forcibly take her to the convent? No. She, being a minor, was in the custody of her PARENTS. It was her PARENT’S decision. Why DOES the Church appear the ogre, not Philomena’s parents for making her go to the nuns? Did her parents know the living conditions? Maybe and maybe not. The All of humanity is broken and scarred from life’s experiences and decisions where perfection in thought, word and action are rarely found–as we see in Philomena, her parents and the nuns. Could pride, fear of judgment from neighbors and family, be the reason her parents wouldn’t allow her to stay home, give birth and raise her child? Did they assume she and her baby would be treated poorly by their community and stigmatized for life and her parents and the Church were just trying to give mother and child a new chance at life and redemption? All are in need of healing and all are to blame and all are to be forgiven. It certainly seems, unfairly, that the movie made one to be the scapegoat.

My friend in the U.S. also had been pregnant in the 1950’s at 17 and was FORCED by her parents to go to a convent/hospital for the duration of her pregnancy so no one knew about it and give her son up for adoption. Her experience there was positive, the nuns were compassionate but she did earn her keep as it was not a vacation or resort, but she couldn’t forgive her parents. She and the father wanted to marry even before their pregnancy but her parents wouldn’t allow it and wanted her to go to college and earn a lot of money. Money and pride were more important. As in Philomena’s life, shame played a big role. She was always heartbroken over it. Her parents wouldn’t allow her to see the father and wouldn’t tell her of his inquiries and letters. Her hope was knowing the child was alive and in a loving home and knowing she gave the gift of life for the man she loved. The void, however, was never filled with a future marriage and three children in marriage.

I am thankful these things happened in the 1950’s. Now parents force their children to have abortions instead, boyfriends force them by saying they will leave if she has the child (they leave anyway) and societal pressures unduly influence the confused mothers and the mothers are never told how it will hurt them. Women who have abortions are six times more likely than non-abortive mothers to have psycholoical and emotional pain that is so devastating they seek drugs, alcohol, and suicide to escape. I had miscarriages and still feel the loss and longing for my children. Even if the mother desires to have the babies and loved them in utero and after they died naturally like I did or chose to end their lives in utero through abortion, there is an innate physiological & psychological bond and response. While not all pregnancies are the result of love–many are the result of using the gift of their human body for selfish entertainment–Philomena shows what science has discovered, that we were made to nurture not to detachedly have sexual relations with or without contraception. Distance and death can’t take away the bond of mother and child or even the bond when a woman gives her greatest gift, her body, to another, as Philomena shows. Society suffers when her women suffer. This film shows this beautifully.

SJR • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

“Women who have abortions are six times more likely than non-abortive mothers to have psycholoical and emotional pain that is so devastating they seek drugs, alcohol, and suicide to escape.” Where is your evidence for this statement? Any studies to back it up? There aren’t any that I know of. I certainly felt only relief when I had a safe and legal abortion at age 48; my sister had at least two abortions before she had her three children, and never had to resort to “drugs, alcohol, and suicide” for this poster’s alleged “psycholoical[sic] and emotional pain.” In any case, losing a child in the way Philomena did — her son taken away without anyone even telling her he would be gone — is not at all like an abortion. This was a powerfully moving and affecting movie. I’m glad I saw it.

Mike Coolik • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Before MURPHY BROWN…ahah…The Power of FILM & TELEVUSION….FIFTY-FIVE MILLION ABORTIONS since ROE vs. WADE….

LarryHouston • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

You say, “Let us forgive the Catholic Church”. Excuse me, but the Catholic Church has not asked for any forgiveness. No, as usual, they deny all responsibility, punish the victims, stonewall, lie, and prevaricate. They accept no Penance. If they would show one ounce of humility or recognition for their wrongdoing, then I could agree with you.

This reminds me of the “Priests Raping Alterboys” scandal. It was ALL about covering it up, denying responsibility, and most of all, hiding the money. And ONLY after they are found guilty in the courts, after their endless appeals, do they start to squeak out a few, “We’re sorries…”.

Kyle Smith’s most egregious mistake was in hijacking and misrepresenting what is our narrative – the true, lived experience of more than 2,000 of us trafficked to the US and our families. It’s forgivable – ignorance can be fixed, stupid is permanent. And I don’t think Smith is stupid, based on prior more thoughtful reviews he’s done. But he either willfully or negligently did not seek to go beyond the surface that is the movie and made assumptions about an issue on which he clearly knows little. Perhaps thanks to Philomena’s thoughtful reply and the Twitter fire, Mr. Smith will take the time to learn more or dialogue with those of us whose lifelong experience can clear up some of the misconception under which he suffers. We welcome anyone else to do the same, if they wish.

Marian Earley • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

To Philomena, thank you for sharing your story with us. I had my son in 1974 when time were slowly changing. I kept him, but while i was in the Mother and baby home, i saw many a woman parting with her baby, there cries and anguish has stayed with me, even still today.

DeeDee • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Ms. Dench is a very good actress. I have watched her for many years in the British comedy-sitcom, As time Goes By, and as Q in 007 with Pierce Brosnan. From the excerpts I’ve seen of this new Movie, I don’t think I care to go to watch it. Sorry, Ms. Dench

Deets • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

I love how proud people are to display their small-mindedness. I just hope that MS. Dench will somehow be able to bear the crushing disappointment of DeeDee’s disapproval.

Roy Hodder • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Everyone should see this film. If one is to believe that this is based on true factual events then two thoughts come to mind. Firstly it is remarkable that she maintains her faith and , secondly, Kyle Smith’s comments has had the reverse effect.

Diana Sharkey • on Nov 27, 2013 10:04 am

Yes, the fine institution of the catholic church – raping little boys, shaming pregnant women and selling their babies, then lying and covering up their illegal and repugnant behavior. So honorable of an institution. The catholic church has, all on its own, proved themselves to be an organization that is despicable, greedy, and unscrupulous. Kyle Smith- you are an idiot to think they are anything else.